Is It Time to End State Licensing of ALL Marriages:

Lars Larsen, Substituting on Michael Savage (6/26) and Today on KXL (6/27) ^ | June 26, 2003 | Lars Larsen

[litany_of_lies]

Lars Larsen brought up a very interesting idea last night while subbing for Savage.

In the wake of the Supremes' sodomy decision, Lars advocates the states ceasing to issue marriage licenses of any kind.

[AntiGuv]

No, government appropriated it without authority.

When? Name me a time and place where marriage was not a government institution, after which it was at some point appropriated by government.

[MineralMan]

Since the state uses marriage as a means of determining taxes and other stuff, it has an interest in registering marriages. That's not going to change.

For those who are non-religious, church weddings don't make any sense. As an atheist, I was married by a court clerk, and my marriage is as valid as that performed by a minister.

In reality, those who do not wish to marry simply do not. Polygamy is handled by simply not marrying multiple partners. There's no law against living with multiple folks nor against having children with them. No big deal for the polygamists.

I'd rather see the church marry it's own members, and leave the civil marriage laws alone. They're needed.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Well, let's just say I don't believe everything I read or hear from fallible men :) I try to study things out before I believe things to be truth.

There was only one who walked this earth perfect...:^)

[AntiGuv]

I can agree to that! See, where not so far apart after all.. :-)

[Loyalist]

PING for discussion.

[TheDon]

Well said. I agree that society, and therefore, our government, should have a strong interest in families. They are the basis of a healthy society and nation.

It may not be apparent to many, but the end of the family, as we know it, will be the death blow of our Nation.

[agitator]

You go dig through the legal archives and tell *me* when the state started requiring defacto permission in the form of a license. Government has nothing to do with marriage until something like property is in dispute. Government isn't required to become married and it isn't a necessary party to a contract between God, you, and your wife. It only becomes involved when something like property is in dispute or when someone decides to avail themselves of a government benefit that it shouldn't be in the business of providing anyway.

[AntiGuv]

Within recorded history, the state started requiring de facto permission in such affairs upon the establishment of the state several thousand years ago. Insofar as legal archives are concerned, I'm unaware of any point at which marriage was not a government institution, and so the best answer to your question is: always.

That was my original answer.....

[Zavien Doombringer]

Indeed we aren't :)

[carenot]

Insofar as legal archives are concerned, I'm unaware of any point at which marriage was not a government institution, and so the best answer to your question is: always.

That makes no sense. My Grandparants were married and it was written into the Family Bible. When the traveling parson came around he blessed their marrage.
No license.

[AntiGuv]

Where & when were your grandparents married?

[carenot]

In Texas about 1903.

[AntiGuv]

Texas is one of ten states that recognize common law marriage. If I'm not mistaken, this recognition extends back to the time when Texas was still a Republic. While the statutes have changed somewhat, the requirements are nonetheless explicitly defined within statutory law. Your grandparents satisfied those governmental requirements at which point they were subject to the full scope of the governmental institution of marriage, as defined by the State of Texas.

[carenot]

Your grandparents satisfied those governmental requirements at which point they were subject to the full scope of the governmental institution of marriage, as defined by the State of Texas.

Maybe so, but I bet they didn't know it!

[exodus]

Texas is one of ten states that recognize common law marriage.
*********************

"Recognize" is the important word in your post.

States "recognize" that we are married, but we are married even if the State doesn't agree.

[MEGoody]

The only problem with the idea of not having marriages licensed by the state (and thereby having no legal defintion of marriage) is that there would be chaos and most likely, significant increases in costs to companies for employee insurance and so forth.

Let me give an example. My elderly mother lived with us for many years. If there is no legal defintion of marriage, my husband (or even myself) could have claimed her as a wife just to get her covered by our insurance. We would also be allowed to claim just about anyone as a deduction on our taxes just by calling them a 'spouse.'

[freeeee]

One doesn't need a marriage license to be married anymore than one needs a birth certificate to be alive.

[AntiGuv]

This was my original statement:

The institution of marriage has always been a government institution in whatever context it has appeared; the practice of cohabitation, on the other hand, is not a government concept. If you divorce marriage altogether from governmental institutions, then marriage would have no meaning whatsoever except as a statement of commitment within whatever social circle one associates with....

The fact that one may consider oneself married even if the State does not agree (that applies to gays as well, BTW) does not mean that marriage is not a government institution.

[AntiGuv]

Eliminating the government institution of marriage simply downgrades straight marriages to the same status gay couples have already; I still fail to see why anyone thinks this somehow protects marriage - from gays or anything else....

[exodus]

To: litany_of_lies
The only problem with the idea of not having marriages licensed by the state (and thereby having no legal defintion of marriage) is that there would be chaos and most likely, significant increases in costs to companies for employee insurance and so forth. Let me give an example. My elderly mother lived with us for many years. If there is no legal defintion of marriage, my husband (or even myself) could have claimed her as a wife just to get her covered by our insurance. We would also be allowed to claim just about anyone as a deduction on our taxes just by calling them a 'spouse.'
*********************

That is two legal "benefits" of having the government recognize your marrage.

Legal recognition does make it easier to prove who you're married to, but recognition by our government is not necessary for the marrage itself to be real.